The Court of International Trade should not again remand an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany because respondent Ellwood City Forge failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding the margin program before it filed suit at CIT, intervenor Edelstahl Siegen said in its May 15 remand comments (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty administrative review on standard pipe from Turkey for 2020-21 after the issue in the case brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret was resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court ruled that Commerce can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in AD proceedings (see 2303150035). Borusan had raised the issue in a separate case at CIT (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00005).

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary request for remand for 120 days to review information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Officine Tecnosider on the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology. Commerce asked for the remand since it said it couldn't find its analysis of the quarterly average prices of steel slab when prepping its reply brief to Officine Tecnosider in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Italy for 2020-21 (see 2305080066) (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

A supermodule for use in hydrogen fuel-cell power plants is correctly classified as a water gas generator, not as "parts" of electric generators, fuel cell manufacturer and generator importer HyAxium said in a May 15 response brief at the Court of International Trade. HyAxium asked the court to rule that the PC50 supermodules are properly classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8405 and to dismiss the government's cross-motion for judgment (HyAxium v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

DOJ is seeking nearly $15 million in unpaid customs duties and civil penalties from five Florida importers at the Court of International Trade for alleged evasion of antidumping duties, according to a May 15 complaint (U.S. v. Lexjet, et al., CIT # 23-00105).

The Court of International Trade on May 16 upheld a finding that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case, sustaining the company's 105.31% China-wide rate in an administrative review on off-the-road tires from China.

The Court of International Trade should stay a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion while another related case goes through remand, DOJ argued in a May 12 motion. The court previously denied a joint motion to stay the case in September, finding that the claims in the EAPA case were "largely independent of Commerce's scope ruling" (see 2209270026) (Far East American v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).

No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).

Granting a government counterclaim that unfinished steel tubes are subject to Section 301 tariffs and imposing the additional duties would be an unconstitutional action by the Court of International Trade "imposing a tax solely based on judicial power," Maple Leaf Marketing argued in a May 12 brief at the Court of International Trade (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).